Donate

Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Atty Mario Apuzzo & CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) were guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim 'Howie' Mandel - Tues 15 Mar 2011, 10:00 ET

Atty Mario Apuzzo & CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) were guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim 'Howie' Mandel - Tues 15 March 2011, 10:00 p.m. ET. The subject will be the Obama eligibility issue and states' rights issues in trying to pass Presidential Eligibility Assurance Acts and get them into effect before the 2012 primary and general election cycle. The Republican Party leadership in the State of GA is blocking the passage of a Presidential Eligibility Act to properly vet candidates in future elections for compliance to Article II, Section 1, the presidential eligibility clause. Why are the Republican leaders of the GA House of Reps blocking a simple law to support and defend a part of our U.S. Constitution given that Congress, the Courts, and the media have done nothing? Why are all our institutions throwing the Constitution under the bus and continuing to cover up for Obama's refusal to prove his true legal citizenship identity beyond reason doubt which he has not done to 2/3 of the American people. That issue and more will be discussed. Tune in.

Listen to the show at this link: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/howieunveilsgodsshield/2011/03/16/what-is-going-on-in-the-world-today

Posted by:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Washington Times - Kerchner v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari at U.S. Supreme Court Conference on Tuesday 23 Nov 2010

Washington Times - Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari at U.S. Supreme Court Conference on Tuesday 23 Nov 2010

Update: No Decision Released Until Monday 29 Nov 2010
per SCOTUSblog

Supreme Court Orders Will be Posted Here at 10 a.m.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx

by: CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org

We are living through history in the making. Please read or re-read this historic Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asking them to support and defend the Constitution ... in particular Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the presidential constitutional eligibility clause. Read or re-read the Petition then read this ad. Then meditate on the words in both and then pray that the Justices do the right thing on Tuesday and support and defend our Constitution and Republic and grant Certiorari and take up our case and seek the truth about Mr. Obama the usurper, impostor, and fraud now occupying the Oval Office. Mr. Obama and his puppet masters and his enablers in political power and in the main stream media have perpetrated and allowed to continue the greatest fraud on this nation in the history of our Republic and he needs to be exposed and removed. See the ad linked to below and via the image at the left for an overview of the Petition and the issues.

Washington Times -- Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Scheduled for Conference on 23 Nov 2010 with the U.S. Supreme Court - Washington Times National Weekly edition - 22 Nov 2010 issue, page 5: http://www.scribd.com/doc/43541103/Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-Scheduled-for-Conference-at-Supreme-Court-on-Tues-Nov-23-2010-WTNW-pg-5


QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
PETITION 10-446
1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.
2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.
3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”
4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Further comments by CDR Kerchner (Ret):

Obama is not Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama's father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama's father was a foreign national, a British Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.
http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

Also, two U.S. Senators although popularly elected and sworn in to the U.S. Senate were subsequently removed from office after it was learned that they were NOT constitutionally eligible when they were elected.

Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator constitutionally ineligible and his seating unconstitutional and election & seating annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin

James Shields [U.S. Senator constitutionally ineligible and his seating unconstitutional and election & seating annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields

Thus it is very clear that winning a popular election does not trump or nullify the constitution of a state or the U.S. federal constitution. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Command in Chief of the military and should be removed from office and his election, confirmation, and swearing in annulled.

Again, please take the time to read or re-read the Petition then read this ad. The questions and the main brief are only 36 succinctly written and easy to read pages. Then meditate on the words therein and then pray that the Justices do the right thing on Tuesday and support and defend our Constitution and Republic and grant Certiorari and take up our case and seek the truth about Mr. Obama the usurper, impostor, and fraud now occupying the Oval Office. Mr. Obama and his puppet masters and his enablers in political power and in the main stream media have perpetrated and allowed to continue the greatest fraud on this nation in the history of our Republic and he needs to be exposed and removed. May God help us save our liberty and republic and protect us in the days ahead.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Friday, November 19, 2010

Unconstitutionally Elected & Seated State & Federal Officials Can and Have Been Removed. A Popular Election Does Not Trump or Amend the Constitution

Ineligible and Unconstitutionally Elected & Seated State & Federal Officials Can and Have Been Removed. A Popular Election Does Not Trump or Amend the Constitution

by: CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Obama is NOT Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President
and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards.
Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama's father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama's father was a foreign national, a British Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.
http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

Also, two U.S. Senators although popularly elected and sworn in to the U.S. Senate were subsequently removed from office after it was learned that they were NOT constitutionally eligible when they were elected.
Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin
James Shields [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields

Thus it is very clear that winning a popular election does not trump, amend, or nullify the constitution of a state or the U.S. federal constitution. We are a nation of laws, not men. We are a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy where the current political whims of the the political majority can over rule the U.S. Constitution by a simple popular vote. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Command in Chief of the military and should be removed from office and his election, confirmation, and swearing in annulled.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner will be on the Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate - Wed, 17 Nov 2010, 9:00 p.m. EST

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) will be guests on the Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate on Wednesday, 17 Nov 2010, at 9:00 p.m. EST. The subject will be the latest news about the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit and Petition filing at the U.S. Supreme Court including review of the four questions presented in the Petition. Two Justices, Sotomayer and Kagan, have been requested in the Petition to recuse themselves from this case in that they have a direct financial conflict of interest in the outcome of this case, i.e., their very appointments to the court were made by Obama. We have also asked the Justices in our Petition to take judicial notice of the Lt Col Lakin court martial in process and the Affidavit filed in that military trial by Lt Gen McInerney as to the impact that the uncertainty of the constitutional eligibility of Obama is having on our military whose members have all sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Recent activity in the case includes an Amicus Curiae Brief which was filed by the Western Center of Journalism in support of the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court. The uncovering and initial release to the public by this blog on 5 Nov 2010 of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) internal memorandum to members of Congress will also be discussed.

Listen to podcast replay at this link:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2010/11/18/revolution-radio-kerchner-obama-the-constitution

Also stop by and read Dr. Kate's post-show blog on the show and the comments at:
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/kerchner-and-apuzzo-interview-on-revolution-radio/

The Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on 30 Sep 2010 and is now scheduled on the Supreme Court docket for discussion by the Supreme Court Justices in conference by them on Tuesday, 23 Nov 2010. To read the Petition see this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
PETITION 10-446

1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.


--------------

P.S. A special request from CDR Kerchner:

Also, please cast your votes to Help the Cause to get the word out:

1st: Vote for the show topic for the Judge Andrew Napolitano "Freedom Watch" TV show to be a discussion of the legal term of art, "natural born Citizenship". Please add your vote (in addition to making a comment if desired) for this new TV Show topic suggested by JTX at the Judge Andrew Napolitano "Freedom Watch" TV show suggestion forum. Go to this link and click on the VOTE button and cast 3 of your 10 votes for the show topic to be "natural born Citizenship". Don't just make a comment only. That does not count as a vote. Be sure to VOTE too: http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/969299-natural-born-citizen-meaning-in-natural-law-s?ref=title

2nd: Vote for Mario to be a guest on Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch TV show: Please add your vote here (in addition to making a comment if desired) to get Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the air with the Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss this issue. Go to this link and click on the VOTE button and cast 3 of your 10 votes for Mario Apuzzo. Don't just make a comment only. That does not count as a vote. Be sure to VOTE too: http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16626-freedom-watch-guest-suggestions/suggestions/268573-mario-apuzzo-esq-

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, see the protectourliberty.org site and help the cause with a donation:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Monday, November 15, 2010

Atty Mario Apuzzo & Mr Don Nelsen were guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim 'Howie' Mandel - Tues 16 Nov 2010, 4:00 p.m. EST

Atty Mario Apuzzo & Mr Donald Nelsen, one of the four plaintiffs in the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit, were guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim 'Howie' Mandel - Tues 16 Nov 2010, 4:00 p.m. EST. The subject was the latest news about the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit and Petition filing at the U.S. Supreme Court and the latest activity in that case including an Amicus Curiae Brief filed by the Western Center of Journalism in support of the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court.

For more about the Jim 'Howie' Mandel Radio Show see: http://www.howieunveilsgodsshield.com/

You can listen to a podcast of this show at:
16 Nov 2010: http://www.latalkradio.com/images/Mandel-111610.mp3
Podcasts of prior Jim Howie Mandel shows covering the Kerchner et al v Obama et al case:
09 Nov 2010: http://www.latalkradio.com/images/Mandel-110910.mp3
05 Oct 2010: http://www.latalkradio.com/images/Mandel-100510.mp3
For podcasts of all Jim Howie Mandel shows see the lower half of this page:
http://www.latalkradio.com/Mandel.php

The Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on 30 Sep 2010 and is now scheduled on the Supreme Court docket for discussion by the Supreme Court Justices in conference by them on 23 Nov 2010. To read the Petition see this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
PETITION 10-446

1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Please make a donation to help the cause if you can at:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####

Ad: Kerchner v Obama Petition is Scheduled for Conference in U.S. Supreme Court on Nov 23rd - Wash Times National Weekly ed - 15 Nov 2010 - pg 5

Ad: Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Scheduled for Conference on 23 Nov 2010 with the U.S. Supreme Court - Washington Times National Weekly edition - 15 Nov 2010 issue, page 5:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42559111/Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-Scheduled-for-Conference-at-Supreme-Court-15Nov2010-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly



QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
PETITION 10-446

1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments by CDR Kerchner (Ret):

Obama is not Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama's father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama's father was a foreign national, a British Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.
http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

Also, two U.S. Senators although popularly elected and sworn in to the U.S. Senate were subsequently removed from office after it was learned that they were NOT constitutionally eligible when they were elected.
Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin
James Shields [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields

Thus it is very clear that winning a popular election does not trump or nullify the constitution of a state or the U.S. federal constitution. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of the military and should be removed from office and his election, confirmation, and swearing in annulled.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Atty Mario Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner on Les Naiman Show, WGTK 970, Louisville KY, hosted by Les Naiman, Sunday 14 Nov 2010 6 PM EST

Les Naiman Show
Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner were featured guests on the Les Naiman radio show, WGTK 970 in Louisville KY, hosted by Les Naiman, on Sunday, 14 November 2010, 6 PM EST. The subject will be the status of the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit which is currently on Petition for Writ of Certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court, docket number 10-446.


QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT - PETITION 10-446
1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.
2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.
3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”
4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.
Link to WGTK 970 in Louisville KY: http://www.970wgtk.com/

You can listen to the show on podcast at this link. Note: we are introduced at about 8 1/2 minutes into the show after his initial monologue on some current events in the news: http://lesnaimanshow.podbean.com/2010/11/14/the-les-naiman-show-111410/

For more details on the latest activity of the Kerchner v Obama petition at the U.S. Supreme Court see this link: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/kerchner-et-al-v-obama-et-al-petition.html

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Please if you can, visit this site and donate to help the cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org

####

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Daniel Webster Reveals that the Kerchner Petitioners Have Standing to Demand that Obama Show He Is A “Natural Born Citizen”

Daniel Webster Reveals that the Kerchner Petitioners Have Standing to Demand that Obama Show He Is A “Natural Born Citizen”

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Daniel Webster, known as the "Defender of the Constitution," was a famous orator and statesman. He argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, served as a U.S. Congressman, a U.S. Senator, and U.S. Secretary of State. In 1820, what later became known as the State of Maine separated from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This development caused the Commonwealth to seek to amend its constitution of 1780. The Commonwealth chose delegates to meet in convention for the purpose of amending its constitution. The town of Boston chose Mr. Webster as one of its delegates.

Mr. Webster served as chairman of the committee which was responsible for determining qualifications for those persons wanting to occupy public office. This committee recommended that “a simple oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth, together with the oath of office, should be taken by all persons chosen or appointed to office. . . . and that a profession of belief in the Christian religion no longer be required as a qualification for office.”

While his position related to retaining a profession of the belief in the Christian religion as a qualification for public office in Massachusetts, Mr. Webster’s statements go beyond just religion and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for they also apply to any qualification that the People may demand that a person meet in order to be eligible for any public office. Here are Mr. Webster’s words in convention as he comments on the committee’s report:

***

"Two questions naturally present themselves. In the first place, Have the people a right, if in their judgment the security of their government and its due administration demand it, to require a declaration of belief in the Christian religion as a qualification or condition of office? On this question, a majority of the committee held a decided opinion. They thought the people had such a right. By the fundamental principle of popular and elective governments, all office is in the free gift of the people. They may grant or they may withhold it at pleasure; and if it be for them, and them only, to decide whether they will grant office, it is for them to decide, also, on what terms and what conditions they will grant it. Nothing is more unfounded than the notion that any man has a right to an office. This must depend on the choice of others, and consequently upon the opinions of others, in relation to his fitness and qualification for office. No man can be said to have a right to that which others may withhold from him at pleasure.

There are certain rights, no doubt, which the whole people, or the government as representing the whole people, owe to each individual in return for that obedience and personal service, and those proportionate contributions to the public burdens which each individual owes to the government. These rights are stated with sufficient accuracy, in the tenth article of the Bill of Rights, in this constitution. " Each individual in society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to the standing laws." Here is no right of office enumerated; no right of governing others, or of bearing rule in the State. All bestowment of office remaining in the discretion of the people, they have of course a right to regulate it by any rules which they may deem expedient. Hence the people, by their constitution, prescribe certain qualifications for office respecting age, property, residence, and taxation. But if office, merely as such, were a right which each individual under the social compact was entitled to claim, all these qualifications would be excluded. Acknowledged rights are not subject, and ought not to be subject to any such limitation. The right of being protected in life, liberty, and estate is due to all and cannot be justly denied to any, whatever be their age, property, or residence in the State.

These qualifications, then, can only be made requisite as conditions for office on the ground that office is not what any man can demand as matter of right but rests in the confidence and good-will of those who are to bestow it. In short, it seems to me too plain to be questioned that the right of office is a matter of discretion and option, and can never be claimed by any man on the ground of obligation. It would seem to follow, then, that those who confer office may annex any such conditions to it as they think proper. If they prefer one man to another, they may act on that preference. If they regard certain personal qualifications, they may act accordingly, and ground of complaint is given to nobody. . . .

Now, if the people may, without injustice, act upon this preference, and from a sole regard to this qualification, and refuse in any instance to depart from it, they have an equally clear right to prescribe this qualification beforehand as a rule for their future government. If they may do it, they may agree to do it. If they deem it necessary, they may so say beforehand. If the public will may require this qualification at every election as it occurs, the public will may declare itself beforehand and make such qualification a standing requisite. That cannot be an unjust rule, the compliance with which, in every case, would be right. This qualification has nothing to do with any man's conscience. If he dislike the condition, he may decline the office in like manner as if he dislike the salary, the rank, or any thing else which the law attaches to it. "

***

(Source: Daniel Webster, The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster, (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1903), Vol. III, pp. 3-7.), accessed at http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=68

Indeed, Webster expresses an opinion that, under a government characterized by popular and elective office, the People have a right to establish qualifications for their elected officials before they may occupy any such office, for such office is “the free gift of the people.” He explains that no man has a right to an office, for the office is granted at the pleasure of the People to those in whom they feel “confidence” and with whom they share a feeling of “good-will” because they believe that person to be both fit and qualified for that office. He adds that the same People can decide at their “discretion and option” to change those qualifications as they deem necessary for their own safety and security.

Mr. Webster then explains how each individual has a personal right to receive protection from his or her government. Mr. Webster explains that each individual in society has in accordance with a legal process a personal right to be protected by the whole People represented by his or her government in his or her life, liberty, and property in exchange for which the individual grants to the whole People and its representative government his or her obedience and personal service. He states that this right to protection “is due to all and cannot be justly denied to any” whatever their condition. He also explains that qualifications for office are for the safety and security of the individual and the nation as a whole. He believes that such qualifications should be retained in the constitution agreed upon by the People so as to provide to them the maximum protection.

This is the same argument that I have made before the U.S. Supreme Court to show that the Kerchner petitioners have standing to pursue their constitutional claims against Obama, Congress, Pelosi, and Cheney, claims in which they demand that Obama conclusively show that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Petitioners have a right to demand that only a person who is a “natural born Citizen” occupy the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. As Mr. Webster explains, it is the Kerchner petitioners personal right to demand it, for the Constitution has decreed it for the benefit of protecting the life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property of every individual making up the People. Indeed, Obama has no right to the Office of President and Commander in Chief. He can only occupy that office at the pleasure, discretion, and option of the People which includes the Kerchner petitioners. And the Kerchner petitioners, showing that both Congress and the Executive have failed to protect them and their individual rights guaranteed to them under the U.S. Constitution and in their effort to therefore protect themselves, have every right to take their claims to a court of law for the purpose of enforcing their personal and individual right to that protection.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
November 10, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner were guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim 'Howie' Mandel - Tues 09 Nov 2010, 4:00 p.m. EST

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner were guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim 'Howie' Mandel - Tues 09 Nov 2010, 4:00 p.m. EST. The subject was the latest news about the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit and Petition filing at the U.S. Supreme Court. http://www.howieunveilsgodsshield.com/

Listen to this show via podcast at this link:
09 Nov 2010: http://www.latalkradio.com/images/Mandel-110910.mp3

Listen to the show at YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=howiekwix#g/u

The Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court filed on 30 Sep 2010 which is now scheduled on the Supreme Court docket for discussion by the Supreme Court Justices in conference by them on 23 Nov 2010 see this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

Read about this recently (5 Nov 2010) leaked to our lawsuit research team of the Congressional memorandum as to the talking point that Congress was prompted to tell concerned citizens when they wrote to Congress with questions about Obama's eligibility. It is clear now that Congress circled their wagons to defend their indefensible position in that they vetted McCain's exact citizenship status in the primary of the 2008 presidential election but did not vet Obama's, when questions were being asked in public about the citizenship status of both. That is unequal protection under the constitution and our laws and a violation of our civil rights. See this announcement for more details: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/members-of-congress-memo-what-to-tell.html

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Please make a donation to help the cause if you can at:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####

Monday, October 11, 2010

Kerchner v Obama Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed & docketed with U.S. Supreme Court - Washington Times National Weekly edition - pg 5

Kerchner et al v Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed 30 Sep 2010 and docketed 04 Oct 2010 with the U.S. Supreme Court - Washington Times National Weekly edition - 25, 18, and 11 Oct 2010 issues, page 5.

U.S. Supreme Court Docket Number: 10-446
. Response from defendants due to the U.S. Supreme Court by 3 Nov 2010.

[Update 13 Oct 2010: Kerchner v Obama - Supreme Court Activity]

Obama is not Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama's father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama's father was a foreign national, a British Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

Link to read and download newest ad: http://www.scribd.com/doc/40046804/Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-for-Writ-of-Cert-Docketed-with-Supreme-Court-25Oct10-issue-Wash-Times-Wkly

History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.

http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A request from CDR Kerchner:

Also, please cast your votes to Help the Cause to get the word out:

1st: Vote for the show topic for the Judge Andrew Napolitano "Freedom Watch" TV show to be a discussion of the legal term of art, "natural born Citizenship". Please add your vote (in addition to making a comment if desired) for this new TV Show topic suggested by JTX at the Judge Andrew Napolitano "Freedom Watch" TV show suggestion forum. Go to this link and click on the VOTE button and cast 3 of your 10 votes for the show topic to be "natural born Citizenship". Don't just make a comment only. That does not count as a vote. Be sure to VOTE too: http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/969299-natural-born-citizen-meaning-in-natural-law-s?ref=title

2nd: Vote for Mario to be a guest on Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch TV show: Please add your vote here (in addition to making a comment if desired) to get Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the air with the Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss this issue. Go to this link and click on the VOTE button and cast 3 of your 10 votes for Mario Apuzzo. Don't just make a comment only. That does not count as a vote. Be sure to VOTE too: http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16626-freedom-watch-guest-suggestions/suggestions/268573-mario-apuzzo-esq-

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
####

Sunday, October 10, 2010

A Sampling of Some Quotes about the U.S. Constitution from History

A Sampling of Some
Quotes about the U.S.
Constitution from History

Quotes Source: http://www.constitution.org/cons/const_quotes.htm

The following is a sampling of some quotes from history which make some very important points about the principles of constitutional republican government:

1. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. — Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.

2. It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;... — Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803).

3. The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. — South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).

4. In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution. — Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93; McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405; Yick Yo Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370.

5. The necessities which gave birth to the constitution, the controversies which precede its formation and the conflicts of opinion which were settled by its adoption, may properly be taken into view for the purposes of tracing to its source, any particular provision of the constitution, in order thereby, to be enabled to correctly interpret its meaning. — Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558.

6. The values of the Framers of the Constitution must be applied in any case construing the Constitution. Inferences from the text and history of the Constitution should be given great weight in discerning the original understanding and in determining the intentions of those who ratified the constitution. The precedential value of cases and commentators tends to increase, therefore, in proportion to their proximity to the adoption of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any other amendments. — Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 547 (1969).

7. To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning, would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. "In expounding the Constitution of the United States," said Chief Justice Taney in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 U.S. 540, 570-1, "every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that, no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood. — Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938).

8. The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere pretences. They are at liberty — indeed, are under a solemn duty — to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of thye courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution. — Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 661.

9. Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful of constitutional rights against any stealthy encroachments thereon. — Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 635.

10. It cannot be assumed that the framers of the constitution and the people who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid the hardships of particular cases. We must accept the constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the sovereign power. — Cook vs. Iverson, 122, N.M. 251.

11. Where the words of a constitution are unambiguous and in their commonly received sense lead to a reasonable conclusion, it should be read according to the natural and most obvious import of the framers, without resorting to subtle and forced construction for the purpose of limiting or extending its operation. — A State Ex Rel. Torryson v. Grey, 21 Nev. 378, 32 P. 190.

12. If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repitition of the wrong will not create a right. — Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.

13. A long and uniform sanction by law revisers and lawmakers, of a legislative assertion and exercise of power, is entitled to a great weight in construing an ambiguous or doubtful provision, but is entitled to no weight if the statute in question is in conflict with the plain meaning of the constitutional provision. — Kingsley v. Merril, 122 Wis. 185; 99 NW 1044.

14. Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantee. — Riley v. Carter, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P. 2d 666; 79 ALR 1018.

15. Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public. — State v. Board of Examiners, 274 N.Y. 367; 9 NE 2d 12; 112 ALR 660.

16. When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it. — (See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. St. 459.

17. I cannot subscribe to the omnipotence of a state legislature, or that it is absolute and without control; although its authority should not be expressly restrained by the Constitution, or fundamental law, of the state. The nature, and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require, nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the Federal, or State, Legislature cannot do, without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof the government was established. An Act of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punishes a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A and gives it to B. It is against all reason and justice for a people to intrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature and the spirit, of our State Government, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes, and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt; or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained, would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments. — Opinion of Justice Chase in Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386-389 (1798).



-----------------------------------------------------------

Posted by:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Pennsylvania USA
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Friday, October 8, 2010

Absolute proof the Founders knew and accepted Vattel`s French "naturels" to mean "natural born"

Absolute proof the Founders knew and accepted Vattel`s French "naturels" to mean "natural born"

by: Teo the Bear @ http://www.thebirthers.org

Found in the Library of Congress Website

If you look at Article III in the body of the text below, you will see,

Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront ĆŖtre pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appointĆ©s par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en consĆ©quence faire aucun trafic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d'autrui.

Going down further to the end you will find under number 3,

The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them. They shall all be appointed by their respective Sovereign, and in Consequence of such appointment they shall not exercise any traffic or commerce whatsoever either on their own account, or on account of any other
Translation by Charles Thomson secretary of the Continental Congress
This is pretty convincing proof that the framers did not need to wait for the 1797 translated edition of Vattel's Law of Nations. It appears they were well apt to translate it themselves. This accepted translation of 'naturel' in 1781, predates John Jay's 1787 letter to George Washington by 6 years.

[Comment by CDR K: This 'naturels' means 'natural born' translation in 1781 was subsequently confirmed by the 1797 translation of the part of the relevant sentence and paragraph in Vattel's Law of Nation, Vol.1, Chapter 19, Section 212, that is, "natural-born Citizens, are those born in the country, to parents who are citizens". Many of the founders and framers were fluent in French since it was the diplomatic language of that time. Thus when the founders and framers wrote the Constitution in 1787 they clearly knew what "natural born Citizen" meant when they upgraded the Citizenship requirement in Article II from simply being a "born Citizen" as proposed by Hamilton to that of being a "natural born Citizen" as recommended by Jay as a strong check against foreign influence on the persons in the future who would be President and Commander of the military. And that meaning was understood to be a person born in the country to parents who are Citizens of the country. Such a person has sole allegiance and unity of citizenship at birth to only the United States. That was the intent of the founders and framers for that legal term of art, natural born Citizen, in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
This restriction on the type of Citizen who could be President was a national security issue to them back then and it is still a national security issue to us now.]
From the Library of Congress
Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789
FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1781

Page 792 | Page image
Link to date-related documents.

A memorial from the honorable. the Minister of France was read, accompanied with the plan of a convention for regulating the powers and duties of consuls and vice consuls.

MEMOIRE

Philadelphia, July 26, 1781.

The twenty-ninth article of the treaty of amity and commerce, between his Most Christian Majesty and the United States, reserves to the two contracting powers "the liberty of having each in the ports of the other, consuls, vice consuls, agents and commissaries, whose functions shall be regulated by a particular agreement." In consequence of this stipulation, the Court of Versailles has caused a draft to be made of a convention, relative to the establishment of consuls, which the undersigned minister plenipotentiary of France has the honour to communicate to Congress. It is the desire of his Majesty, that this draft should be examined by Congress; and those points marked which admit of no difficulty; and that the others should be submitted to the examination of delegates appointed by both parties, who may make such observations as they shall judge proper, and propose such alterations as they may think convenient. These objects will require discussion in repeated conferences; and the undersigned intreats that Congress would determine in what manner these conferences shall be held. The proposed convention requires the most mature consideration of both parties; while at the same time it is equally the interest of both, with all speed, to introduce consistency and uniformity into their respective commercial establishments; and the undersigned is of opinion that Congress will think it


Page 793 | Page image

necessary to prosecute this business with all possible despatch.

(Signed)Le Chev. de la Luzerne.1

[Note 1: 1 This version is taken from the printed Secret Journal, Foreign Affairs; it is also printed in the Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution (Wharton), IV, 604. Another translation is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 25, II, folio 17.]

Projet de Convention entre le Roi TrĆØs ChĆ©rtien, et les Etats Unis de l'AmĆ©rique Septentrionale, Ć  l'effet de dĆ©terminer et fixer les fonctions et prĆ©rogatives des Consuls, Vice Consuls, et des Agens respectifs.

Le roi trĆØs chrĆ©tien, et les Etats Unis de l'AmĆ©rique Septentrionale, s'Ć©tant accordĆ©s, mutuellement, par l'article 29 du traitĆ© d'amitiĆ© et de commerce conclu entre eux, la facultĆ© de tenir dans leurs Ć©tats respectifs, des consuls, vice consuls, et des agens, et voulant en consĆ©quence dĆ©terminer, et fixer d'une maniĆ©re rĆ©ciproque et permanente les fonctions et prĆ©rogatives des dits consuls, vice consuls, et des agens respectifs, il a Ć©tĆ© convenu ce qui suit.

ARTICLE I

Les consuls, et vice consuls nommĆ©s par le roi trĆØs chrĆ©tien, et les Etats Unis, seront tenus de prĆ©senter leurs provisions Ć  leur artivĆ©e dans leurs Ć©tats respectifs. On leur dĆ©livrera, sans aucun frais, l'exequatur nĆ©cessaire Ć  l'exercice de leurs fonctions et sur l'exhibition qu'ils feront du dit exequatur, les gouverneurs, prĆ©sidens, commandans, chefs de justice, les corps des tribunaux ou autres officiers, ayant autoritĆ© dans les ports et lieux de leur consulats, les y feront jouit, aussitot, et sans difficultĆ©, des prĆ©-Ć©minences, autoritĆ© et privilĆ©ges accordĆ©s rĆ©ciproquement sans qu'ils puissent


Page 794 | Page image

exiger des dits consuls, et vice consuls aucun droit sous aucun prƩtexte quelconque.

ARTICLE II

Les consuls respectifs auront la facultƩ d'Ʃtablir des vice consuls dans les diffƩrens ports et lieux de leur dƩpartement ou le besoin l'Ʃxigera. On leur dƩlivrera Ʃgalement l'exequatur nƩcessaire Ơ l'exercice de leurs fonctions et sur l'exhibition qu'ils feront du dit exequatur ils seront admis et reconnus dans les termes et selon les pouvoirs, autoritƩ et privilƩges stipulƩs par les articles 1, 5, et 6, de la prƩsente convention.

ARTICLE III

Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront ĆŖtre pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appointĆ©s par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en consĆ©quence faire aucun trafic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d'autrui.

ARTICLE IV

Les consuls respectifs pourront Ć©tablir des agens dans les diffĆ©rens ports et lieux de leur dĆ©partement, oĆ¹ le besoin l'Ć©xigera. Les agens pourront ĆŖtre choisis parrot les nĆ©gocians nationaux ou Ć©trangers et taunts de brevets de l'un des dits consuls; ils se renfermeront respectivement Ć  rendre aux commerƧans, navigateurs, et batimens respectifs, tous les services possibles et informer le consul ou vice consul le plus proche des besoins des dits commerƧans, navigateurs et batimens, sans que les dits agens puissent autrement participer


Page 795 | Page image

aux immunitĆ©s, droits et privilĆØges attribuĆ©s aux consuls et vice consuls par la prĆ©sente convention.

ARTICLE V

Les consuls et vice consuls, les officiers du consulat, et gĆ©nĆ©ralement toutes les personnes attachĆ©es aux fonctions consulaires jouiront respectivement d'une pleine et entiĆØre immunitĆ© pour leurs personnes, leurs papiers, et leurs maisons. Ils seront exempts de tout service personnel et offices publics, logement de gens de guerre, milice, guet, garde, tutelle, curatelle, ainsi que de tous droits, taxes, impositions, charges quelconques, hors les biens fonds, dont ils seront propriĆØtaires, les quels seront assujettis aux taxes imposĆ©es sur les biens de tous autres particuliers. Ils pourront faire placer sur la porte extĆ©rieure de leur maison les armes de leur souverain, sans cependant que cette marque distinctive puisse donner Ć  la dire maison le droit d'azile pour aucun malfaiteur ou criminel de maniĆØre que Ie cas arrivant oĆ» aucun malfaiteur ou criminel s'y refugierait il sera rendu sur le champ Ć  la premiĆØre rĆ©quisition et sans difficultĆ©.

ARTICLE VI

Les consuls ou les vice consuls respectifs, dans les lieux ou il n'y aura pas de consuls pourront avoir dans leur maison une chapelle pour y cĆ©lĆ©brer le service divin, et le roi trĆØs chrĆ©tien ainsi que les Etats Unis, donneront des ordres prĆ©cis et effectifs dans les ports et lieux de leur domination pour qu'il ne soit apportĆ© aucun retard ni empĆŖchement lors de la cĆ©rĆ©monie, des obsĆ©ques et funĆ©railles des sujets de l'une des deux nations, qui seront dĆ©cĆ©dĆ©s dans l'Ć©tendue des terres de l'autre.


Page 796 | Page image

ARTICLE VII

Dans tous les cas gĆ©nĆ©ralement quelconques concernant la police ou l'administration de la justice, oĆ» il sera nĆ©cessaire d'avoir une dĆ©claration juridique des consuls et vice consuls respectiffs, le gouverneur, le commandant, le chef de la justice, les corps des tribunaux ou autres officiers quelconques de leur rĆ©sidence respective y ayant autoritĆ©, seront tenus de les en prĆ©venir en leur Ć©crivant, ou en leur envoyant un officier militaire ou civil, pour leur faire connoĆ®tre, soit l'objet que l'on se propose soit la nĆ©cessitĆ© dans la quelle on se trouve d'aller chez eux pour leur demander cette dĆ©claration, et les dits consuls, ou vice consuls seront tenus de leur cĆ“tĆ© de se prĆŖter loyalement Ć  ce qu'on dĆ©sirera d'eux dans ces occasions.

ARTICLE VIII

Les consuls, et vice consuls respectifs, pourront Ć©tablir une chancellerie ou seront dĆ©posĆ©s les actes et les dĆ©1iberations consulaires, tous les effets dĆ©laissĆ©s par dĆ©funts, ou sauvĆ©s des naufrages, ainsi que les testamens, obligations, contrats, et gĆ©nĆ©ralement tous les actes et procĆ©dures faits, entre leurs nationaux. Ils pourront en consĆ©quence commettre Ć  l'exercice de la dire chancellerie des personnes capables les recevoir; leur faire prĆŖter serment, leur donner la garde du sƧeau, et le droit de sceller les commissions, jugemens, et autres actes du consular, ainsi que d'y remplir les fonctions de notaires et greffiers.

ARTICLE IX.

Les consuls, et vice consuls respectifs auront le droit exclusif de recevoir dans leur chancellerie, ou abord


Page 797 | Page image

des bĆ¢timens, les dĆ clarations et tous les autres actes, que les capitaines, patrons, Ć©quipages passagers, et nĆ gotians, de leur nation, voudront y passer, mĆŖme leur testamens et autres dispositions de derniere volontĆ©, et les expĆØditions des dits actes duement lĆ©galisĆ©es par les dits consuls ou vice consuls et munis du sƧeau de leur consulat feront foi, en justice, dans tous les tribunaux de France, et des Etats Unis. Ils auront aussi, et exclusivement, le droit de faire l'inventaire, la liquidation, et de procĆ©der Ć  la vente des effets mobiliers de la succcession des sujets de leur nation qui viendront mourir dans les Ć©tats respectifs. Ils y procĆ©deront avec l'assistance de deux nĆ©gotians de leur dite nation, leur choix, et feront dĆ©poser dans leur chancellerie les effets, et papiers, des dites successions, sans qu'aucun des officiers militaires, de justice, ou de police, du pays puissent les y troubler, ni y intervenir de quelque maniĆØre que ce soit: Mais les dits consuls et vice consuls ne pourront faire la dĆ©ivrance, des successions et de leur produit aux hĆ©ritiers lĆ©gitimes oĆ¹ Ć  leurs mandataires, qu'aprĆØs avoir fait acquitter toutes les dettes que les dĆ©funts auront pu avoir contractĆ©es dans le pays par jugement, par actes, ou par billets dont l'Ć©criture et la signature seront reconnues et certifiĆ©es, par deux notables nĆ©gotians de la nation des dits dĆ©funts, et dans tous autres cas le payement des dettes ne pourra ĆŖtre ordnnĆ© qu'en donnant, par le crĆ©ancier, caution suffisante, et domiciliĆ©e de rendre les sommes induĆ«ment perĆ©ues, principal, interĆ©ts, et frais, lesquelles cautions cependant, demeureront duĆ«ment dĆ©chargĆ©es aprĆ s une annĆ©e en terns de paix, et deux en terns de guerre; si la demande en dĆ©charge ne peut ĆŖtrĆ© formĆ©e avant ces dĆ©1ais contre les hĆ©ritiers qui si prĆ©senteront.


Page 798 | Page image

ARTICLE X

Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs, recevront les dĆ©clarations, et les consulats de tous capitaines et patrons de leur nation respective, pour raison d'avaries essuyĆ©es Ć  la mer par des voyes d'eau ou jets de marchandise, mĆŖme lorsqu'il y aura des nĆ©gotians Ć©trangers intĆ©rĆ©ssĆ©s dans la cargaison; ou ces capitaines et patrons remettront dans la chancellerie des dits consuls et vice consuls les consulats qu'ils auront faits dans autres ports pour les accidens, qui leur seront arrives pendant leur voyage; et dans les deux cas, les dits consuls et vice consuls respectifs, rĆ©gleront l'avarie sans dĆ©lai par des experts, de leur nation qu'ils nommeront d'office; et par des experts d'une partie de leur nation et l'autre d'Ć©trangers dans le cas ou un Ć©tranger sera interessĆ© dans la cargaison.

ARTICLE XI

Dans le cas ou par tempĆŖte, ou autre accident, des vaisseaux ou batimens FranƧois Ć©chƶueront sur les cĆ“tes des Etats Unis, et des vaisseaux ou batimens des Etats Unis echƶueront sur les cĆ“tes de France, le consul ou le vice consul le plus proche du lieu de naufrage pourra faire tout ce qu'il jugera conyenable tant pour sauver le dit vaisseau ou batiment, son chargement et appartenances, que pour le magazinage et la suretĆ© des effets sauvĆ©s et marchandises: Il pourra en faire l'inventaire sans qu'aucun officiers militaires, des douanes, de la justice, ou de la police du pays puissent s'y immiscer autrement que pour faciliter aux consuls, et vice consuls, capitaine et Ć©quipage du vaisseau naufragĆ©, ou Ć©chouĆ©, tous les secours et faveurs qu'ils leur demanderont, soit pour la cĆ©lĆ©ritĆ© et la suretĆ© du sauvetage, et des effets sauvĆ©s, soit pour Ć©viter les dĆ©sordres qui


Page 799 | Page image

n'accompagnent que trop souvent ces accidents. Pour prĆ©venir mĆŖme toute espĆ ce de conflit et de discussion dans les dits cas de naufrage, il a Ć©tĆ© convenu, que lors qu'il ne se trouvera pas de consul ou de vice consul pour fairs travailler au sauvetage, ou que la rĆ©sidence du dit consul ou vice consul qui ne se trouvera pas sur le lieu du naufrage, sera plus Ć©loignĆ©e du dit lieu que celle du juge territorial compĆ©tent, ce dernier y fera procĆ©der sur le champ avec toute cĆ©lĆ©ritĆ©, la suretĆ© et les prĆ©cautions prescrites par les loix respectives, sauf au dit juge territorial Ć  se retirer; le consul ou vice consul survenant, et Ć  lui remettre les procĆ©dures par lui faites, dont le consul ou vice consul lui fera rembourser les frais. Les marchandises sauvĆ©es devront Ć©tre dĆ©posĆ©es Ć  la douane la plus prochaine avec l'inventaire qui en aura Ć©tĆ© dressĆ© par le consul ou vice consul, ou en leur absence par le juge qui en aura connu; pour, les dites marchandises, ĆŖtre ensuite dĆ©livrĆ©es, aprĆ©s le prĆ©1evement des frais et sans forme de procĆØs aux proprietaires, qui munis de la main levĆ©e du consul ou vice consul le plus prochain les rĆ©clameront par eux mĆŖmes ou par leur mandataires; soit pour reporter les marchandises, et dans ce cas elles ne payeront aucune espĆ ce de droit de sortie; soit pour les vendre dans le pays, si elles n'y sont pas prohibĆ©es, et dans ce cas, les dites marchandises se trouvant avariĆ©es on leur accordera une modĆ©ration sur les droits d'entrĆ©e proportionĆ©e au domage souffert, lequel sera constatĆ© par le procĆØ verbal dressĆ© lors du naufrage et de l'Ć©chouement.

ARTICLE XII

Les consuls et vice consuls du roi trĆØs chrĆ©tien, ĆØtablis dans les Etats Unis, et les consuls et vice consuls des Etats Unis ĆØtablis en France, y exerceront la police sur


Page 800 | Page image

tous les batimens de leurs nations respectives et auront abord des dits batimens tout pouvoir et jurisdiction dans toutes les discussions qui pourront y survenir. Ils auront une entiĆ re inspection sur les dits batimens, leurs Ć©quipages, les changemens, et les remplacemens Ć  y faire, ainsi que pour tout ce qui concernera leur navigation, et l'observation de leurs loix, ordonnances, rĆ©glemens respectifs. Ils pourfont se transporter abord des batimens de leur nation arrivant dans les ports, havres ou fades respectifs, et ce aussi souvent qu'ils le jugeront apropos pour l'acquit de leur charge sans qu'aucun officiers des douanes, de police, ou autres puissent les en empĆŖcher. Ils pourront faire arrĆŖter tout batiment portant le pavillon de leur nation respective, le faire sĆ©questrer, et mĆŖme, le renvoyer respectivement de France dans les Etats Unis et des Etats Unis en France, et faire arrĆŖter sans difficultĆ© tout capitaine patron, matelot ou passager de leur dire nation respective. Ils pourront rĆ©clamer les matelots, dĆ©serteurs, et les vagabonds de leur nation respective, les faire arrĆŖter et dĆ©tenir dans le pays ou les renvoyer et faire transporter hors du pays. Il suffira que les consuls ou vice consuls respectifs, puissent justifier que ces matelots, dĆ©serteurs et vagabonds de telle nation qu'ils puissent ĆŖtre d'ailleurs, sont inscrits, sur leur registre ou portĆ©s sur le rĆ“le de l'Ć©quipage, et l'une ou l'autre de ces deux piĆØces Ć©tant suffisantes pour fonder la validitĆ© de la rĆ©clamation, de la dĆ©tention, et de la dĆ©portation des dits matelots, dĆ©serteurs, et vagabonds, aucun d'iceux, FranƧois ou AmĆ©ricain ne pourra dans les pays respectifs par lui mĆŖme ou par autrui rĆ©clamer les loix ou l'autoritĆ© locale, interdisant sur ce toute connoissance Ć  tous tribunaux, juges et officiers quelconques. Dans tous ces cas, les dits matelots, dĆ©serteurs et vagabonds seront


Page 801 | Page image

remis aux rĆ©clamants, quelques soient leurs engagements, et ils ne pourront devenir engagĆ©s, retenus ou soustraits en aucune maniĆ re quelconque et par qui ce soit, nationaux ou Ć©trangers Ć  la perquisition que les dits consuls ou vice consuls, en feront faire par personnes autorisĆ©es par eux et chargĆ©es d'une rĆ©quisition signĆ©e d'eux; et pour l'Ć©xĆ©cution de toutes les dispositions ce dessus les gouverneurs, commandans, chefs de la justice, les corps des tribunaux ou autres officiers des pays respectifs y ayant autoritĆ©, seront tenus et obliges de prĆ©ter main forte aux consuls et vice consuls respectifs et sur une simple rĆ©quisition signĆ©e d'eux sauf Ć  faire arrĆŖter, dĆ©tenir et garder dans les prisons Ć  la disposition et aux frais des dits consuls et vice consuls, les matelots, dĆ©serteurs, et les vagabonds rĆ©clames jusqu' Ć  ce qu'ils ayent occasion de les faire embarquer et sortir du pays. Et si les dits matelots, dĆ©serteurs, et vagabonds dans la vue d'Ć©luder leur renvoi alliguaient qu'ils veulent retourner Ć  leur patrie pour devenir sujets de S. M. T. C. ou des Etats Unis, respectivement, on n'aura aucun Ć©gard Ć  cette assertion.

ARTICLE XIII

Dans les cas ou les sujets respectifs auront commis quelque crime contre quelqu'un des habitans du pays, qui mƩrite punition exemplair, ils seront justiciables des juges du pays.

ARTICLE XIV

Les consuls et vice consuls du roi T. C. ĆØtablis dans les Etats Unis, et les consuls et vice consuls des Etats Unis ĆØtablis en France, y connoĆ®tront, Ć  l'exclusion des tribunaux du pays, de tous les diffĆ©rens et procĆØs, qui pourront naĆ®tre Ć  terre entre les capitaines, patrons,


Page 802 | Page image

Ć©quipages, passagers et commƧerans de leur nation respective. Ils les accorderont amiablement ou les jugeront sommairement, et sans frais, pour l'appel de leur jugemens ĆŖtre portĆ© respectivement aux tribunaux de France et des Etats Unis, qui jugent en dernier ressort, et qui devront en connoĆ®tre. Ils exerceront ces fonctions de justice, priveĆ©, ou de police nĆ©cessaire sans qu'aucun des officiers militaires, de justice ou de police du pays, puissent s'y immiscer et y intervenir en aucune maniĆØre. Dans tous les cas ou il surviendra aussi entre les nĆ©gotians FranƧois demeurant en France, et leur compatriotes Ć©tablis ous la protection du roi trĆØs chrĆ©rien dans les Etats Unis, des diffĆ©rens procĆØs pour raison de leur commerce, ainsi qu'il en surviendra de mĆŖme entre les nĆ©gotians AmĆ©ricains domiciliĆ©s dans les Etats Unis, et leurs compatriotes Ć©tablĆ©s sous la protection des Etas Unis dans le royuame de France, pareillement pour raison de leur commerce, les dits diffĆ©rens et procĆØs seront insfruits et jugĆ©s, sommairement et sans frais, entre eux, chacun par le consul ou vice consul de leur nation respective et les appels du jugement portĆ©s aux tribunaux respectifs qui jugent en dernier ressort, soit en France, soit dans les Etats Unis. A l'Ć©gard des autres diffĆ©rens et procĆØs, qui pourront naĆ®tre entre les sujets du roi T. C. et ceux des Etats Unis, dans les etats respectifs, soit comme demandeurs, soit comme dĆ©fendeurs, les uns envers les autres tant a l'occasion des fournitures, marchĆØs, trafic, qu'ils feront ensembles, et des soldes qui en rĆ©sulteront, que des lettres de change, assurances, avaries, faillities et de toutes autres causes civiles, et criminelles, relatives au commerce, ils seront portĆ©s dans le pays devant les tribunaux que devront en connoĆ®tre en premiĆØre instance et par appel, sans que sous aucune prĆ©texte les consuls et vice consuls respectifs putssent s'y immiscer en aucune maniĆØre.


Page 803 | Page image

ARTICLE XV

L'utilitĆ© gĆ©nĆ©rale du commerce ayant fait Ć©tablir en France des tribunaux et des formes particuliĆØres pour accĆ©lĆ©rer la dĆ©cision des affaires de commerce, les nĆ©gotians AmĆ©ricains jouiront du bĆ©nĆ©fice de ces Ć©tablissemens en France, et les Etats Unis procureront des avantages Ć©quivalents et coincidents avec ces tribunaux et ces formes en faveur des nĆ©gotians FranƧois dans les affaires de mĆŖme nature.

ARTICLE XVI

Les sujets du roi trĆØs chrĆ©tien, et ceux des Etats Unis, qui justifieront ĆŖtre du corps de la nation respective, le certificat du consul ou vice consul du district faisant mention de leurs noms, surnoms, et du lieu de leur Ć©tablissement comme inscrits dans les registres du consulat, ne pourront perdre pour telle cause que ce soit dans les domaines et Ć©tats respectifs, la qualitĆ© de sujets du pays dont ils sont originaires, conformement Ć  l'article 11 du traitĆ© d'amitiĆ© et de commerce du 6 Fevrier 1778, dont les prĆ©sent article servira d'interprĆ©tation en cas de besoin; et les dits sujets respectifs jouiront, en consĆ©quence, de l'exemption de tous services personnels dans le lieu de leur Ć©tablissement, et en outre, ils ne pourront y ĆŖtre assujettis Ć  aucune taxe relative Ć  l'industrie.

ARTICLE XVII

Toutes les stipulations ci dessus fondƩes sur une exacte rƩciprocitƩ, serviront dorƩnavant de regles, fixes, et invariables pour tous les objets, sur lesquels elles portent; mais si quelque autre nation conserve ou acquiert Ơ tel titre que ce soit, ou en vertu d'une convention quelconque, un traitement plus favorable soit en


Page 804 | Page image

France, soit dans les Etats Unis, relativement aux consuls, vice consuls et agens, et Ć  leur prĆ©-Ć©minences, pouvoirs, autoritĆ© et privilĆ©ges, les consuls, vice consuls et agens du roi trĆØs chrĆ©tien dans les Etats Unis, et les consuls, vice consuls et agens des Etats Unis en Frances y participeront aux termes stipulĆ©s par l'article 11 du dit traitĆ© d'amitiĆ© et de commerce conclu entre le roi trĆØs chrĆ©tien et les Etats Unis.

ARTICLE XVIII

Les ratifications de la prƩsente convention, seront donnƩes en bonne forme et ƩchangƩes de part et d'autre dans l'espace de six mois, ou plutƓt si faire se peut.

En roy de quoi, &c.

Conforme Ơ l'original restƩ par devers nous.

Le Chevalier de la Luzerne.

A Philadelphie le 24 Juillet, 1781.1

[Note 1: 1 This memorial and plan of convention were entered only in the manuscript Secret Journal, Foreign Affairs. The following translation, in Charles Thomson's hand, was the paper considered by Congress. It is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 25, II, folio 21.
[Translation]
A Plan of a Convention
Between the Most Christian King and the United States of North America, for the purpose of determining and fixing the functions and prerogatives of their respective Consuls, Vice Consuls and Agents.
The Most Christian King and the thirteen United States of North America, having mutually granted to each other by the 29 article of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce concluded between them the power of keeping in their respective States Consuls, Vice Consuls and agents, and being willing in consequence thereof to determine and fix in a lasting manner, and on terms of equality the functions and prerogatives of the said Consuls, Vice Consuls and Agents, have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE 1
The Consuls and Vice Consuls named by the Most Christian King and the United States, shall be obliged to present their appointments on their arrival in the respective States, and there shall be delivered to them the exequatur necessary for the exercise of their functions, and upon the exhibition which they shall make of that exequatur, the Governors, Presidents, Commandants, Chief Judges, Magistrates of the place tribunals and other officers exercising authority in the ports and places of their Consulships shall cause them to enjoy there immediately and without difficulty the preƩminences authority and privileges mutually granted, without exacting from the said Consuls and Vice Consuls any duty or emoluments, under any pretext whatsoever.
2
The Respective Consuls shall have power to establish Vice Consuls in the different Ports and places within their departments, where necessary: There shall in like manner be delivered to them the exequator necessary for the exercise of their functions, and upon the exhibition which they shall make of the said exequatur, they shall be admitted and recognized in the terms and according to the Powers, authority and privileges stipulated by the 1, 5, and 6 articles of this present Convention.
3
The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them. They shall all be appointed by their respective Sovereign, and in Consequence of such appointment they shall not exercise any traffic or commerce whatsoever either on their own account, or on account of any other
4
The respective Consuls shall have power to establish agents in the different Ports and places within their department where necessary. These agents may be chosen from among the Merchants of their nation or strangers, and shall be furnished with a Commission from one of the said Consuls, and shall respectively Be authorized to render to their respective merchants seamen and vessels all possible service, and to inform the nearest Consul or Vice Consul of the wants of the said merchants, seamen and vessels; but the said agents shall not in any respect participate in the immunities, rights and privileges granted to Consuls and Vice Consuls by the present Convention. Nor shall they exact any duty by virtue of their appointment under any pretence whatsoever.
5
The Consuls and Vice Consuls the officers of the consulship and generally all persons attached to the Consular functions shall respectively enjoy a full and entire immunity for their persons papers and houses. They shall be exempted from all personal service, and public offices, from finding quarters for soldiers, from militia duties, from watch, ward, guardianship curatelle, and from all duties, taxes, imposts and charges whatsoever, save on real estates which they shall own, which shall be subject to the Taxes imposed on the estates of all other individuals. They shall be at liberty to fix upon the outer door of their house the arms of their Sovereign, provided always that this mark of distinction, shall not give to the said house the right of asylum to any malefactor or criminal, who shall take refuge there; but he shall be immediately delivered up on the first requisition and without any difficulty.
6
The Most Christian King and also the United States, shall give precise and effectual orders in the ports and places within their jurisdiction, that no let or hindrance be given to the funeral rites and obsequies of any subject of the one or the other nation, who shall die within the territories of the other.
7
In all cases, generally whatever respecting the police and administration of justice, where it shall be necessary to have a judicial declaration of the said Consuls and Vice Consuls respectively, the Governor, President, Commandant, Chief Judges Magistrates of the place, tribunals or other officers whatever at their respective residence or Consulate having authority there shall be bound to give them notice thereof in writing r by sending to them a civil or military officer to inform them of the object in view and the necessity there is of going to them, and demanding from them that declaration, and the said Consuls and Vice Consuls, shall be bound on their part, readily and bona fide to do what shall be required of them on those occasions.
8
The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall have power to establish a Chancery, for depositing the Consular acts and deliberations, the effects left by persons deceased or saved from shipwreck, also the testaments, obligations, contracts, and in general all the acts and proceedings made and done by or between people of their nation. They shall of consequence have power to appoint capable persons to manage that Chancery, to admit them into office, to administer an oath to them, to give them the keeping of the Seal, and the right of sealing the Commissions, judgements and other acts of consulship and also to execute the office of Notaries and scribes.
9
The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall have the exclusive right of receiving in their Chancery or on board of vessels the declarations and all other acts, which the captains, masters, seamen, passengers and merchants of their nation shall be willing to give there, and their testament and other dispositions of a last will, and the copies of the said acts duly authenticated by the said Consuls or Vice Consuls, and under the seal of their Consulship shall be admitted in all Courts of Justice in France and the United States. They shall also have the exclusive right of making inventories and liquidating accounts and of proceeding to the sale of the personal effects left by the subjects of their nation who shall happen to die in the respective States. They shall proceed therein, with the assistance of two merchants of their said nation whom they shall choose and shall cause to be deposited in their Chancery the effects and papers of the said successions, nor shall any officer civil or military, of justice, or of the police of the Country be allowed to give them any interruption or disturbance whatever. But the said Consuls and Vice Consuls, shall not be at liberty to deliver up the property or the produce thereof, to the lawful heirs or their attorneys, until they have caused to be discharged all the debts which the deceased may have contracted in the Country by judgment by acts or by bills, the writing and signature of which shall be proved and certified by two noted merchants of the nation of the said deceased, and in all other cases the payment of debts shall not be ordained, but upon the creditors giving sufficient security by a Bondsman resident there, to return the sums unduly received, both principal interest and costs, which securities however shall be duly discharged after one year in time of peace, and after two years in time of war, if a demand in discharge cannot before that time be made against the heirs who shall appear.
10
The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall receive the declarations and protests of all Captains and Masters of their respective nations on account of damages at sea by leakage or throwing goods overboard, even though Foreign Merchants are interested in the Cargo; or the Captains and masters shall lodge in the Chancery of the said Consuls and Vice Consuls the protests, which they shall make in other Ports on account of the accidents that have happened to them during their voyage; and in both cases the said Consuls and Vice Consuls respectively shall settle the damage without delay by experienced persons of their nation whom they shall name ex officio and by experienced persons equally of each nation, where a stranger is interested in the cargo.
11
In case either by tempest or other accident, the ships or vessels of France shall be wrecked on the Coast of the United States, or the ships or vessels of the United States shall be wrecked on the Coast of France, the Consul or Vice Consul nearest to the place of shipwreck, shall have power to do whatever he shall judge proper, as well for saving the ship or vessel, her cargo and appurtenances as for storing and securing the effects and merchandize saved. tie shall have power to take an inventory of them, nor shall any military officers nor officers of the Customs, or naval officers nor officers of Justice or of the police of the Country be allowed to interfere farther than by affording to the Consuls and Vice Consuls, the Captain and Crew of the vessel wrecked or stranded all the assistance and favour required of them either for the speedily saving and securing the effects, or for preventing the disorders, which too frequently accompany such accidents, to prevent all Interference of jurisdictions in case of shipwrecks, it is agreed that where there is no Consul or Vice Consul to assist in saving the wreck, or where the residence of the said Consul or Vice Consul not being at the place shall be farther distant than that of a competent territorial judge, this latter shall immediately promote with all expedition, the saving the wreck and the measures prescribed by their respective laws, provided always, that the Territorial Judge shall retire upon the coming of the Consul or Vice Consul, to whom he shall transfer the whole and commit the farther prosecution of the measures by him taken and the Consul or Vice Consul shall reimburse him the expences incurred. The merchandize saved shall be deposited in the nearest custom house or other nearest place of security, if there shall be no custom house, with an inventory made out by the Consul or Vice Consul, or in their absence by the judge who shall have had cognizance thereof, in order that the said merchandizes may after payment of the expence be afterwards delivered without any formal process to the owners, who being furnished with a release from the nearest Consul or Vice Consul shall reclaim them in person or by attorney, either for the purpose of reexporting the merchandizes, in which case they shall not pay any kind of duties on exportation, or for the purpose of selling them in the country, if they are not there prohibited, and in this case the said merchandize being damaged an abatement shall be made on the import duties proportioned to the damage suffered, which shall be determined by the verbal process stated at the time of the wreck or stranding.
12
The Consuls and Vice Consuls of the Most Christian King established in the United States, and the Consuls and Vice Consuls of the United States in France, shall there exercise the police over all the vessels of their respective nations, and shall have on board the said vessels all power and jurisdiction in all discussions which can arise there. They shall have the entire inspection over the said vessels, their crews, the changes and the recompenses for making them, and also for whatever shall concern their navigation, and the observance of their respective laws ordinances and regulations.
They shall be at liberty to go on board the vessels of their nation arriving in the respective ports havens and roads, and that as often as they shall judge necessary for the performance of their office, nor shall any officers of the customs, or of the police or any other persons whatever prevent them.
They shall be at liberty to arrest and sequester all the vessels carrying the flag of their respective nation, and even to send them back respectively from France to the United States, and from the United States to France, and to arrest without any difficulty every captain master, seaman or passenger of their respective nation.
They shall be at liberty to reclaim sailors, deserters and the vagabonds of their respective nation, and to arrest and detain them in the country or to send them away and cause them to be transported out of the country: It shall be sufficient that the Consuls or Vice Consuls respectively can prove that the sailors, deserters and vagabonds, of what nation soever they be are inserted in the registers, or entered on the roll of the crew, and the one or other of these two pieces being sufficient to establish the validity of the claim and detention and of the transportation of the said seamen, deserters and vagabonds, none of them whether French or American shall in the respective countries either by himself or others, be at liberty to claim the benefit of the laws or authority of the country, all tribunals, judges and officers whatsoever being interdicted from all cognizance thereof. In all these cases, the said seamen, deserters and vagabonds shall be delivered to the reclaimers, whatever may be their engagements, and they shall not be engaged, detained or withdrawn in any manner, or by any person whatever, whether natives or foreigners, upon the requisition which the said Consuls or Vice Consuls shall cause to be made by persons authorised by them and entrusted with the requisition signed by them.
And for the execution of all the regulations above-mentioned, the governors, commandants, chief judges, magistrates of the place, tribunals, and other officers of the respective countries having authority there, shall be held and bound to assist the respective Consuls and Vice Consuls, and upon a simple requisition signed by them, saving the power of arresting, to detain and keep in prison, at the disposal and cost of the said Consuls and Vice Consuls, the sailors, deserters and vagabonds reclaimed, until they shall have an opportunity of putting them on board and sending them out of the country.
13
In case the subjects respectively shall commit any crime against any inhabitants of the country which deserves exemplary punishment, they shall be tried by the judges of the country.
14
The Consuls and Vice Consuls of the Most Christian King established in the United States, and the Consuls and Vice Consuls of the United States established in France shall to the exclusion of the tribunals of the country have cognizance there of all differences and processes which shall arise on land between the captains, masters, crews, passengers and traders of their respective nations. They shall settle them in an amicable manner, or decide them summarily and without costs, and the appeal from their judgments shall be carried respectively to the tribunals of France and the United States, that judge in the last resort and that ought to have cognizance thereof. They shall exercise these offices of private justice and of necessary police, nor shall any military officer, nor any officer of justice or of police in the country intermeddle or interpose in any manner whatever.
In case any differences or suits on account of their commerce shall happen either between French merchants living in France and their countrymen settled under the protection of the most Christian King in the United States, or between the American merchants dwelling in the United States and their countrymen settled under the protection of the United States in the Kingdom of France, the said differences and suits shall be brought to trial and decided between them in a summary way and without expence by the Consul or Vice Consul of their respective nation, and the appeals from their judgment shall be to the respective tribunals which judge in the last resort, whether in France or in the United States.
With respect to all other differences and suits that may arise between the subjects of the Most Christian King and those of the United States in the respective countries either as plaintiffs or defendents one against another, as well on account of bargains and traffic one with another and the payments to be made in consequence thereof, as for bills of exchange, insurances, damages at sea, bankruptcies, and all other causes civil and criminal relative to commerce, they shall be prosecuted in the country before the tribunals which ought to take cognizance thereof in the first instance and by appeal nor shall the respective Consuls and Vice Consuls under any pretence intermeddle therein in any manner.
15
The general advantage of commerce having given occasion to establish in France certain tribunals and particular forms for the speedy determination of commercial matters, the American merchants shall enjoy the benefits of those establishments in France and the United States shall procure equal advantages coinciding with the tribunals and forms in favor of the French merchants in matters of the same nature.
16
The subjects of the Most Christian King and those of the United States, who shall prove that they are under the laws of their respective nation, the certificate of the Consul or Vice Consul of the district mentioning their names surnames and place of abode as inserted in the registers of the Consulship, shall not for any cause whatever lose in the respective dominions and States, the quality of subjects of the country to which they originally belong, conformably to the 11 article of the treaty of amity and commerce of the 6 Feby. 1778, of which this present article shall serve for an interpretation if occasion require, and the said subjects respectively shall consequently enjoy an exemption from all personal services in the place of their residence and moreover they shall not be subject to any tax relative to labour.
17
All the stipulations abovementioned being founded on an exact reciprocity shall henceforth serve for regulating fixing and rendering invariable all the objects to which they relate. But if any other Nation enjoys, or acquires under any title or in virtue of any convention whatever a more favorable treatment either in France or in the United States with regard to Consuls, Vice Consuls and agents, and their preƫminences powers authority and privileges, the Consuls, Vice Consuls and agents of the most Christian King in the United States, and the Consuls, Vice Consuls and agents of the United States in France shall participate therein, agreeably to the terms of the 11 article of the said treaty of amity and commerce, concluded between the Most Christian King and the United States.
18
The ratifications of this present convention shall be delivered in good form and exchanged by one party and by the other in the space of 6 months or sooner if possible In testimony whereof &c. agreeable to the original remaining with us.
Philadelphia the 24th July. 1781.
(Signed)Le Chev. de la Luzerne.]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted here by:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####